|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Van Duyn (1974)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:38 2006
Case 41/74. The British Home Office refused permission to a Ms
Van Duyn to enter the UK to work, on the grounds that she was a
member of the Scientology organization. Although Art. 39 of the ECTreaty
provides for FreeMovementOfWorkers, the right is not unqualified.
In particular, a member state is allowed to restrict entry on the
basis of ``public policy, public security, or public health''. The
UK argued that, by association with the Scientology organization,
Van Duyn was a threat to public order.
Van Duyn based her case against the UK on rights she asserted under
Directive 64/221, Article 3 (1) of which states:
"measures taken on ground of public policy or public security shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the person concerned."
The primary question for the ECJ, therefore, was whether the Directive
in question had DirectEffect, that is, was capable of being invoked by a
private individual before national courts.
The ECJ held that it did, because the effect of
Directives would be weakened if their proper implementation could not be
challenged in national courts.
There is no direct provision for direct effect in the
ECTreaty, but such a provision could be inferred from
other provisions and the need for member states to give proper
effect to EC legislation.
Having established that the Directive had direct effect, the next question was
whether the UK, in seeking to refuse entry to Van Duyn, was in breach of
its provisions. The ECJ held that while association with a particular organization
was not, in itself, a guarantee that a person was inclined to a particular kind
of conduct, it was a factor which the member state was entitled to take
into account.
CaseLaw
EULaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|